JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Heard Mr. Thakkar, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Vakil, learned advocate for the respondent. 2. In present petition the petitioner has challenged award dated 31.8.2006 passed by learned Industrial Tribunal at Ahmedabad in Reference (IT) No. 202/1993 whereby learned Tribunal has directed the petitioner to fix basic pay of the concerned claimant at the level of Rs. 1060 w.e.f. 1.9.1991 and to pay salary accordingly from the date of award but with further direction that the period from 1.1.1991 shall be considered notional. 3. So far as factual background is concerned it has emerged from the record that the petitioner bank appointed about 59 persons on the post of Supervisor w.e.f. 5.10.1970, vide order dated 25.9.1970. 3.1 At the time when the petitioner bank started process of filing up the post of supervisor by making appointment, even employees of the bank who possessed prescribed qualification had also participated in the selection and recruitment process and their cases were also considered by the bank. 3.2 The employees who participated in the selection process passed through the same process as the outsiders or non-departmental candidates (viz. written examination and interview) and thereafter said 59 posts of supervisor came to be filled up by combination of direct recruitees and the bank employees. 3.3 It appears that after the process was finalized and appointments were made and the said 59 persons reported for and resumed duties as Supervisor their salary was fixed in the scale of supervisor i.e.175-8-215-EB-10-255-12-315-EB-15-245. 3.4 It appears that one of the said 59 persons was an employee of the bank i.e. Mr. Khatri who, prior to the said selection process, was working as Clerk with the bank and he had participated in the selection process and after undergoing the selection process, he was selected and appointed as supervisor. 3.5 The bank considered his request separately and fixed his salary in the same pay scale but at Rs. 1060/- i.e. he was granted two extra increments. 3.6 It is pertinent to note that the bank granted similar benefit and effect to another bank employee, i.e. Mr. Sanghani but his salary came to be fixed at Rs. 1,020/-. 3.7 At this stage, it is relevant and necessary to note and mention that the names of said Mr. Khatri and Mr. 3.6 It is pertinent to note that the bank granted similar benefit and effect to another bank employee, i.e. Mr. Sanghani but his salary came to be fixed at Rs. 1,020/-. 3.7 At this stage, it is relevant and necessary to note and mention that the names of said Mr. Khatri and Mr. Sanghani were at S. No. 45 and S. No. 1 respectively in the list dated 5.10.1970 (pages 43 & 45). 3.8 Despite this fact, the case of said Mr. Khatri and Mr. Sanghani were considered for higher pay in the same scale. 3.9 Therefore other 58 persons raised demand that their pay should be fixed at the same stage in same pay scale and they should be put at par with Mr. Khatri so far as basic salary in the said pay scale is concerned. The said claim and demand was raised on the ground that they were selected in the same selection process and they were appointed on the same day and therefore such discrimination should not be permitted. 3.10 It appears that the bank considered said demand and partly accepted the demand inasmuch as the bank granted similar benefit to 35 persons whose names appeared above the name of Mr. Khatri. 3.11 After the said decision the bank issued office order dated 3.9.1991 and fixed salary of 35 persons at Rs. 1060/- whereas salary of Mr. Khatri who stood at serial No. 36 in the merit list, was already fixed at Rs. 1060/-. 3.12 Consequently, out of 59 persons who were selected in the same selection process and were appointed on the same post on the same day, salary of 36 persons were fixed at salary of Rs. 1060/- and other 23 persons were deprived of said benefit and similar treatment. 3.13 Feeling aggrieved by the said discrimination the said 23 persons raised dispute. Appropriate government referred the dispute for adjudication. The said dispute was registered as Reference (IT) No. of 202 of 1993. 3.14 Before the Tribunal the parties filed their pleadings and led oral/documentary evidence. On conclusion of the stage of evidence the learned Tribunal heard rival contentions. 3.13 Feeling aggrieved by the said discrimination the said 23 persons raised dispute. Appropriate government referred the dispute for adjudication. The said dispute was registered as Reference (IT) No. of 202 of 1993. 3.14 Before the Tribunal the parties filed their pleadings and led oral/documentary evidence. On conclusion of the stage of evidence the learned Tribunal heard rival contentions. 3.15 On appreciation of evidence, the learned Tribunal reached to the conclusion that the action of the bank amounted to discrimination and unfair practice and that there was no rationale or reason for fixing salary of persons selected and recruited during same selection process on the same post and appointed on the same day at different stage in the same pay scale. 3.16 Having reached said decision the learned Tribunal passed the award which is impugned in this petition. 4. During hearing of this petition, Mr. Thakkar, learned advocate for the petitioner bank did not raise any contention against the decision by the learned Tribunal that the concerned claimants fall within purview of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Therefore, there is no need to address the issue in present decision. 5. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the impugned award is unreasonable, arbitrary and erroneous. According to the petitioner, the learned Tribunal has committed error in accepting the claim for treatment on par with other employees whose salary came to be fixed on higher scale. Therefore, there is no need to address the issue in present decision. 5. The learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the impugned award is unreasonable, arbitrary and erroneous. According to the petitioner, the learned Tribunal has committed error in accepting the claim for treatment on par with other employees whose salary came to be fixed on higher scale. He submitted that two persons who came to be selected and appointed on the post of Supervisor (after the process of selection) were, at the time when they submitted the application and at the time when they came to be selected, employees of the bank in the cadre/category lower than the cadre of Supervisor but in their respective cadre, their basic salary was higher than the salary (at starting scale) for the post of Supervisor and that, therefore, to avoid any loss or adverse effect in respect of salary of said two persons (employees of the bank) appropriate fitment in the pay scale attached to the post of Supervisor was granted and thereafter similar treatment was given to the persons whose names appeared in the list above the names of the said two employees and that, therefore, there was no error in illegal in the action of the petitioner bank, however, the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the said position and therefore, the award deserves to be set aside. 5.1 Per contra learned advocate for the respondent supported the award and submitted that there is no error or illegality in the award. Learned advocate for the respondent emphasized that the mode of direct recruitment/open recruitment was adopted and followed by the bank for selection and recruitment in respect of the post of Supervisor and that, therefore, even the employees of the bank had to pass through same selection process along with the outside candidates. Mr. Vakil, learned advocate for the respondent further submitted that when common selection process for all candidates including the employees of the bank was undertaken by the bank and when there was no stipulation or declaration that amongst the selected candidates, the existing employees of the bank will be considered senior and/or their salary will be protected then such extra benefit could not have been granted by the bank to the employees who participated in the same selection process and came to be appointed with other candidates on the same day through same selection process. Learned advocate for the respondent would further submit that even if the bank was inclined to grant such benefit to the employees, then other candidates who participated in the same selection and came to be selected on the same day for same post should also have been granted the same benefit. Mr. Vakil, learned advocate for the respondent further emphasized that actually, the bank partly accepted and partly implemented the same principle inasmuch as the bank extended such benefit to other 31 appointees but denied the said benefit to about 23 appointees. According to the respondent, the said action of the bank is discriminatory, arbitrary and unreasonable and therefore, the learned Tribunal set aside the said action. According to the respondent, the award is based on findings of fact recorded by the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal has recorded sufficient and cogent reasons in support of its conclusions and findings of fact and therefore, the award may not be interfered with. 6. I have considered rival submissions and the material available on record as well as impugned award. 7. From the submissions it has emerged that out of total 59 persons which were selected and appointed during above mentioned selection and recruitment process, 4 persons were employees of the bank and other 55 persons were direct recruitees (i.e. other than employees of the bank). 7.1 It is not in dispute that all 59 persons participated in and came to be selected pursuant to the same selection and recruitment process. It is also not in dispute that all 59 persons came to be appointed on the post of Supervisor and that all of them appointed on the same day. 7.2 The bank claims that after the salaries of the said 59 persons were fixed in the pay scale attached to the Supervisor, request/application was made by said Mr. B.M. Khatri that his salary would be adversely affected because the starting salary in the pay scale of Supervisor is less than the salary which he was drawing as Clerk prior to his appointment as Supervisor. It is given out by the bank that the pay scale for the post of Supervisor started at Rs. 175/- whereas at the time when said Mr. Khatri came to be selected and appointed on the post of Supervisor, he was drawing salary @ Rs. 195/- as Clerk. It is given out by the bank that the pay scale for the post of Supervisor started at Rs. 175/- whereas at the time when said Mr. Khatri came to be selected and appointed on the post of Supervisor, he was drawing salary @ Rs. 195/- as Clerk. According to the bank it was in this background that it considered the request/application of said Mr. Khatri and salary of Mr. B.M. Khatri came to be fixed at Rs. 199/- i.e. at two stages higher than the scale attached to the post of Supervisor. 7.3 The said action of the bank gave rise to dissatisfaction amongst other appointees which included 3 employees of the bank. 7.4 It appears that the union raised grievance on behalf of the other persons who were also selected and appointed on same day, on same post and same selection and recruitment process. The bank claims that subsequently a settlement was arrived at with the union pursuant to which the bank agreed to fix salary of all those persons whose names appeared above the name of Mr. Khatri at Sr.No.36, i.e. the bank agreed to give similar treatment to 35 other employees whose names were above the name of Mr. Khatri in the list/order dated 6.10.1970. 7.5 It appears that the bank implemented the said decision in respect of other 35 persons as well as said Mr. Khatri. 8. In this background, salary of said other 35 persons (all of them are direct recruitees) and their salary (in revised scale) came to be fixed at Rs. 1,060/-, whereas the salary of other persons, i.e. from S. Nos. 37 to 59 was fixed, or that rather remained, at Rs. 980/-. 8.1 In this background, the said other 23/25 employees raised dispute demanding similar treatment and they claimed that the discrepancy should be removed. The dispute came to be referred for adjudication by way of Reference No. 202 of 1993. 9. It appears that the concerned claimants before the learned Tribunal emphasized that the said special favour was extended to only one person, i.e. Mr. B.M. Khatri and subsequently to other 35 persons whose names appeared in the list above Mr. Khatri were also given benefit of fixation of salary at Rs. 1,060/- i.e. at the slab where salary of Mr. Khatri was fixed. 10. B.M. Khatri and subsequently to other 35 persons whose names appeared in the list above Mr. Khatri were also given benefit of fixation of salary at Rs. 1,060/- i.e. at the slab where salary of Mr. Khatri was fixed. 10. It is necessary to recall and note at this stage that though the said 35 persons are direct recruitees and they are similarly placed as other about 23 to 25 persons, the benefit of fixation of salary at higher stage which came to be granted to the said persons only on the ground that the salary of the person at S. No. 36 was fixed at Rs. 1,060/-. 11. It is interesting to note that Mr. Khatri's salary came to be revised and fixed at Rs. 1,060/- purportedly to avoid adverse effect to his salary (as clear before his selection and appointment as Supervisor). 11.1 Thereafter, without any justification the salary of other 35 persons came to be fixed at Rs. 1,060/- despite the fact that all of them were direct recruitees and were similarly placed as other 23 to 25 direct recruits on the same post and during same selection process. 11.2 On this count it is necessary to note and to keep in focus that undisputedly neither in the advertisement (inviting applications) nor in any agreement with the union or in any other manner there is any provision or condition or promise or understanding that in case of such selection (of bank employee) for higher post appropriate adjustment will be granted while fixing salary in the scale of higher post so that his salary on his erstwhile post (lower post) may not be adversely affected. 11.3 Therefore, as such, there was no obligation on the bank to accede to request by Mr. Khatri and to grant such special and discriminatory treatment. 11.4 The bank did not stop at this stage but it multiplied its discriminatory approach by extending similar special treatment to other 35 employees and depriving other about 23 employees inasmuch as the same benefit was denied to the persons whose names were mentioned after S. No. 36 i.e. from S. Nos. 37 to 59. 11.5 The salary of all other persons who were selected and recruited in the same selection process and appointed on the same day on the same post of Supervisor was fixed at Rs. 37 to 59. 11.5 The salary of all other persons who were selected and recruited in the same selection process and appointed on the same day on the same post of Supervisor was fixed at Rs. 980/- i.e. at the starting scale/slab of the pay scale for the post of Supervisor. 12. At this stage, it would be appropriate to take into account the defence set-up by the bank in its reply before the learned Tribunal. The bank claimed that the bank re-fixed the salary of Mr. Khatri at different stage so as to avoid adverse effect of salary and thereafter at the request of other employee, i.e. Mr. Sanghani, was also re-fixed in the same manner so that his salary on the post of Clerk may not be adversely affected. With reference to the other 35 employees, the bank claimed that since the names of said 35 persons appeared in the list above Mr. Khatri, the bank granted the said benefit to other 35 employees. That is the only reason or justification which the bank offered to justify its action for fixing salary of 35 persons at Rs. 1,060/- while the salaries of other persons were fixed at Rs. 980/-. The bank also opposed the reference on the ground that the claimants were appointed in the category of Supervisor and that, therefore, they cannot be termed 'workman' and therefore, the reference should not be entertained. 13. From the factual background and from the submissions it has emerged that the employees of the bank had voluntarily participated in the selection and recruitment process. 13.1 It was by their own choice that they submitted application for the post of Supervisor. 13.2 The said bank employees-applicants were aware about the pay scale attached to the post of Supervisor. 13.3 With the said knowledge and despite such fact (difference in salary), the applicants - bank employees offered their candidature and they participated in the proceedings and they accepted the appointments consciously and with the knowledge about the pay scale attached to the post of Supervisor. 13.4 Therefore, on one hand there was no justification in the demand or grievance of the said two bank employees on the other hand there was no obligation on the bank to accept their demand, that too by discriminating other recruitees by denying similar benefit and treatment to them. 13.4 Therefore, on one hand there was no justification in the demand or grievance of the said two bank employees on the other hand there was no obligation on the bank to accept their demand, that too by discriminating other recruitees by denying similar benefit and treatment to them. 13.5 As mentioned earlier, the bank multiplied its arbitrariness and discrimination by granting similar benefit to other 35 direct recruits and denying the benefit to other about 23 recruitees. 14. Further, in view of the above said background, even if the explanation offered by the bank with regard to the fixation of salary of Mr. Khatri is accepted as just and reasonable, inasmuch as the bank claims that it fixed the salary of Mr. Khatri at slab/stage of Rs. 1,060/- so as to avoid adverse effect on his salary, then also the explanation or reply by the bank of extending similar benefit to 35 direct recruitees with similar benefit (i.e. fixation of salary at Rs. 1,060/- as against the starting pay scale of Rs. 980/-) and denying similar treatment to other 23 direct recruitees has no bases or justification and said action is without any rationale and justification. 15. At this stage, it is relevant to note that in light of communication dated 29.8.1991 the bank claims that it fixed the salary of other 35 persons after discussion with the union. 15.1 When the communication is taken into account, it comes out that the bank appears to have written to the General Secretary of the Union that the bank will remove the discrepancy with effect from 1.4.1991 so that the difference in salary of senior/junior can be removed, however, the bank will not pay arrears for period prior to 1.4.1991. From the said communication, it does not come out that the agreement with the union was in respect of only 35 persons and that similar treatment was not to be extended to the persons whose names appeared at S. Nos. 37 to 59. From the said communication, it does not come out that the agreement with the union was in respect of only 35 persons and that similar treatment was not to be extended to the persons whose names appeared at S. Nos. 37 to 59. 15.2 Further, in light of the fact that the recruitment was made on "direct recruitment" basis and even the bank employees had participated in the selection process as direct applicants and in view of the fact that all appointments were made with effect from same day and by same order and there is no provision either in the Rules or in any agreement with the union and when even in the advertisement any condition to the effect that though it is direct recruitment post the bank employees - appointees will be considered senior and also in view of the fact that out of total 59 candidates - appointees only 4 or 5 persons are bank employees, in the first instance the question of senior and junior amongst the appointees did not (and could not) arise and even otherwise any issue of junior and senior would not and cannot arise amongst 55 outsiders i.e. the candidates - appointees who were not employees of the bank. Therefore also there is no substance in the said defence and/or in the bank's action of granting the said benefit to some of the outside appointees and denying same benefit to other outside employees who were appointed on same post on same day after same selection process. 16. At this stage it is relevant to also take note of another aspect which has emerged from the record and the submissions. On examination of the record, more particularly the list/order dated 5.10.1970 and the list/order dated 6.11.1970 and the bank's letter dated 29.8.1991 (addressed to the General Secretary of the union) certain anomalies and discrepancies have emerged viz. that name of Mr. Sanghani appeared at S. No. 1 in the list dated 5.10.1970 whereas name of Mr. B.M. Khatri appeared at S. No. 45 in the said list dated 5.10.1970. Thereafter, the said order/seriatim was altered and the name of Mr. Sanghani was pushed down to S. No. 44, whereas name of Mr. B.M. Khatri was taken up at S. No. 36 in the list dated 6.11.1970. Dated: 12.01.2017 17. B.M. Khatri appeared at S. No. 45 in the said list dated 5.10.1970. Thereafter, the said order/seriatim was altered and the name of Mr. Sanghani was pushed down to S. No. 44, whereas name of Mr. B.M. Khatri was taken up at S. No. 36 in the list dated 6.11.1970. Dated: 12.01.2017 17. Apart from above mentioned anomalies, certain other discrepancies, with regard to the names of the employees at S. Nos. 37 to 44, have also emerged. 18. Since any explanation with regard to the said and similar other anomalies or discrepancies could not be found from the record including the written statement filed by the bank before the learned Tribunal, the Court asked learned advocate for the petitioner to clarify the said discrepancies. Learned advocate for the petitioner was not able to offer any explanation or to give reply for want of details/material available on record. Therefore, he requested for time to call for details/material from the concerned officer of the bank. The request was granted and the dictation of the judgment was deferred till the next day, i.e. 12.1.2017. However, today also learned advocate for the petitioner is unable to offer any explanation, much less satisfactory explanation with regard to the aspects for which the clarification was sought for. Therefore, the Court has proceeded further with the dictation of the judgment by taking note of the fact that the petitioner has not able to clarify the discrepancies which have emerged from the said two lists and the communication to the union vis-à-vis impugned orders granting different fitment in the pay scale to certain recruitees (while denying similar treatment to other recruitees). 18.1 As mentioned above, name of Mr. Sanghani appeared at Sr.No.44 in the list dated 6.10.1970. Thus, if the explanation and justification given by the bank is accepted, then according to the said submission, all employees whose names appeared at S. Nos. 37 to 44 i.e. Mr. V.M. Patel, Mr. S.G. Desai, Mr. M.A. Shah, Mr. J.P. Khatri, Mr. S.M. Maru, Mr. N.B. Parekh, Mr. K.H. Prajapati and Mr. M.K. Patel, should have been granted similar benefit and their salary should have been fixed at Rs. 1,020/- along with Mr. Sanghani. From the details mentioned in its written statement, it comes out that the bank claimed that similar treatment was granted to Mr. V.M. Patel, Mr. S.G. Desai, Mr. M.A. Shah, Mr. J.P. Khatri, Mr. K.H. Prajapati and Mr. M.K. Patel, should have been granted similar benefit and their salary should have been fixed at Rs. 1,020/- along with Mr. Sanghani. From the details mentioned in its written statement, it comes out that the bank claimed that similar treatment was granted to Mr. V.M. Patel, Mr. S.G. Desai, Mr. M.A. Shah, Mr. J.P. Khatri, Mr. S.M. Maru, Mr. N.B. Parekh, Mr. K.H. Prajapati and Mr. M.K. Patel. However, any explanation with reference to other 3 employees, viz. Mr. M.A. Patel, Mr. J.P. Mankad and Mr. V.M. Patel is not offered by the bank. 18.2 Thus, 35 direct recruitees got benefit of fixation of salary at Rs. 1,060/- on the ground that the bank fixed salary of Mr. Khatri at Rs. 1,060/-. Thereafter, other 4 direct recruitees got benefit of fixation of salary at Rs. 1,020/- on the ground that Mr. Sanghani's salary came to be fixed at Rs. 1,020/-. 18.3 At that stage, 3 direct recruitees were deprived of similar treatment, i.e. fixation of salary @ Rs. 1,060/- or Rs. 1,020/-. Besides this, the persons whose names appeared at Sr. Nos. 45 to 59 in the list dated 6.10.1970 did not get similar treatment at par with either Mr. Sanghani or Mr. Khatri inasmuch as their salary came to be fixed at Rs. 980/- (and their salary was neither fixed at Rs. 1,060/- or Rs. 1,020/-). 18.4 The said discrepancy is sought to be explained only on above mentioned ground which is not sustainable either in law or on ground of equity. 19. At this stage, it is interesting to note that after addressing the letter dated 29.8.1991, wherein the bank has not mentioned that benefit or treatment will not be extended to all 59 persons, the bank forwarded list of 31 persons with regard to whom fixation of salary was made in different manner, i.e. at Rs. 1,060/- and Rs. 1,020/-. 20. On this count also it is relevant to recall that the bank claims that it fixed salary of all persons at Rs. 1,060/- whose names appeared above name of Mr. Khatri. If that reply is to be accepted as correct, then salary of at least 35 persons should have been fixed at Rs. 1,060/- whereas, according to the list dated 3.9.1991, salary of only 27 persons (out of total 31 names mentioned therein) is shown @ Rs. 1,060/-. 21. 1,060/- whose names appeared above name of Mr. Khatri. If that reply is to be accepted as correct, then salary of at least 35 persons should have been fixed at Rs. 1,060/- whereas, according to the list dated 3.9.1991, salary of only 27 persons (out of total 31 names mentioned therein) is shown @ Rs. 1,060/-. 21. The sum total of above discussion is that any legally sustainable explanation with regard to the discriminatory approach adopted by the bank in respect of the persons who came to be selected and appointed during same selection process and on the same post and on the same day, is not offered or made out. The learned Tribunal has recorded sufficient and cogent reasons to support its decision and there is no reason or justification to interfere with the said findings of fact and conclusions by the learned Tribunal. 21.1 In this view of the matter, the direction given by the learned Tribunal cannot be faulted. The petitioner has failed to make out any ground against the impugned award. 22. It is pertinent to note that the union had demanded that the salary of all employees should be fixed at Rs. 1,060/- from the same day when the salary of Mr. Khatri and other persons came to be fixed at Rs. 1,060/-. However, the learned Tribunal has, while partly allowing the reference, directed that the salary of all employees will be fixed at Rs. 1,060/- from 1.4.1991, however, period from 1.4.1991 to 31.8.2006 i.e. the date of award shall be considered notional. 22.1 Since the union or the concerned claimants have not taken out petition and not challenged the order by the learned Tribunal directing that the period from April 1991 to August 2006 will be considered notional, the said decision and direction cannot be interfered with in the petition filed by the bank. 23. However, having regard to the fact that the bank did not pay the amount to the employees according to learned Tribunal's direction with effect from 1.9.2006 until now and has not deposited the amount, appropriate directions are required to be passed. Mr. Thakkar, learned advocate for the petitioner bank would contend that the operation of the award remained stayed during intervening period and that, therefore, any other direction may not be passed. Mr. Thakkar, learned advocate for the petitioner bank would contend that the operation of the award remained stayed during intervening period and that, therefore, any other direction may not be passed. However, merely because the operation of the award was stayed at the request of the petitioner bank, it does not automatically mean that even if the bank does not succeed in the petition then also appropriate directions cannot be passed while deciding the petition at final stage. Interim orders are always subject to final directions. 23.1 Therefore, while rejecting the petition and confirming the award passed by the learned Tribunal, it is clarified that the bank shall pay the amount to the concerned employees with interest at the same rate which was applicable to fixed deposit during the period from September 2006 to December 2016 in respect of the difference of the amount which became payable on month to month basis from 1.9.2006 onwards. 24. The award does not suffer any infirmity and does not warrant any interference and does not need to be disturbed. Consequently, the petition deserves to be rejected and is hereby rejected. Rule is discharged. Petition Dismissed.